From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Edmund Rhudy" Subject: RE: Overheating is *not* dangerous Re: Changing temperature trip points Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 17:46:57 -0500 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <000601c2838a$e9dbb210$c200a8c0@pikachu> References: <20021103223822.GN28704@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20021103223822.GN28704-jyMamyUUXNJG4ohzP4jBZS1Fcj925eT/@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: 'Pavel Machek' Cc: 'Dominik Brodowski' , acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org So you're saying that if the hardware vendor screwed up, the end user should suffer? Are you entirely certain that this is an appropriate view to take? As for the Celeron, Intel lists the maximum junction temperature of the 4 different varieties of 900 MHz Celerons (the speed of the one in my laptop) at either 72 C (in the case of the SL633) or 77 C (the SL5WY, SL5MQ, SL5LX). -----Original Message----- From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org] Sent: Sunday, 3 November 2002 5:38 PM To: Edmund Rhudy Cc: 'Dominik Brodowski'; acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Subject: Re: Overheating is *not* dangerous Re: [ACPI] Changing temperature trip points Hi! > The point that I, and it would seem Dominik too, am trying to make is > that you can't always rely on this sort of stuff. My laptop didn't > shut down when it was in danger, and it doesn't have any sort of > throttling Your laptop is still alive, so I do not think it was in danger. [Athlon/900 seems to work stable at 83Celsius. Celeron/300 worked stable up to 95Celsius. I do not know why you think 70Celsius is too much for celeron]. > safeguard, nor is there anything that can be changed in the BIOS. My > desktop allows you to set a shutdown temperature, but by default it's > left blank, so the system would happily slag itself unless there is > direct user intervention. User intervention is not guaranteed, nor is > a nicely behaved BIOS that watches for this sort of thing. *If* fan on your desktop dies (1st hardware bug), and your ACPI bios is broken (2nd hardware bug), and you configure trip points but forget polling frequency (2 hw bugs and user error), and your CPU does not have thermal protection (it has to according to ACPI specs -- 3 hw bugs and user error) you can cook your cpu (given its older athlon). Okay but even if we compensated for your user error, still 3 hw bugs and one software bug would cook your machine (kernel crash). If hw vendor made 3 hardware errors... I guess he deserves to have that machine cooked. Pavel -- Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building, cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com